This press release from the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), dated 21 June 2007, has largely gone off the media radar due to Howard’s Indigenous Emergency plan hogging all the limelight:
Changing the definitions describing de facto relationships in relevant federal laws could help end daily discrimination suffered by more than 20,000 same-sex couples in Australia, according to a report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), tabled in Federal Parliament today.
The Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Report, being officially launched in Sydney tomorrow by Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes AM, found that 58 federal laws denied same-sex couples and their children basic financial and work-related entitlements available to opposite-sex couples and their children.
“As one man told us during our Inquiry - same-sex couples are first class tax-payers but second class citizens - and we have certainly found this to be true,�? Mr Innes said.
“This discrimination is completely unfair. There are 58 federal laws breaching the most fundamental of human rights principles – non-discrimination, equality before the law and the best interests of the child.�?Mr Innes pointed out that same-sex couples often pay more tax than opposite-sex couples because of discrimination in tax law, yet they cannot expect the same entitlements in employment, workers’ compensation, veterans’ entitlements, health care subsidies, family law, superannuation, aged care and immigration law.
“Simple amendments to the definitions in a raft of federal laws would end this discrimination,�? Mr Innes said.
President of HREOC, John von Doussa, who also led the Inquiry, said the discriminatory laws also have a negative impact on children.
“The Inquiry found that the best interests of children would be better protected if federal, state and territory laws changed to recognise the relationship between a child and both parents in a same-sex couple,�? Mr von Doussa said.
The Same-Sex: Same Entitlementsreport is based on HREOC’s 2006 National Inquiry into discrimination against people in same-sex relationships in the area of financial and work-related entitlements. The Inquiry held public hearings and community forums around Australia and received 680 submissions covering a range of topics, many of which described first-hand the impact of discriminatory laws on same-sex couples and their children.
The final report is available online at www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/. Personal stories of Inquiry participants can be found in appendix two.
Heterosexual couples who don’t wish to be officially married are extremely fortunate in Australia that legislation exists to protect partner rights and benefits for de-facto married couples. This is extremely important in ensuring that unmarried couples have the same rights as married couples regarding taxation, insurance, employment, workers’ compensation, veterans’ entitlements, health care subsidies, family law, superannuation, aged care and immigration law. This protects both partners in case of serious illness or financial adversity and ensures an equitable division of assets and custody when a partnership ends.
This is not the case in many other countries - in the USA, for example, it is usually impossible to have family medical insurance for a partner and children unless the couple is registered as married.(Aside: I often wonder whether this is at the heart of conservative resistance to universal health care in the USA - they couldn’t bear to see the immediate downturn in the marriage rate that would result.)
As the HREOC press release makes clear, same sex couples don’t get access to the same privileges as unmarried opposite sex couples simply because our laws referring to de facto partnerships are written to define de facto partnerships as between opposite sex individuals only. This is why the press report refers to simple changes - they actually only have to take words out, not put them in. All they have to do is refer to “two adults cohabiting in a domestic situation” instead of to “two adults of the opposite sex cohabiting in a domestic situation”.
For me, the added fact that such a change would possibly give adults cohabiting in non-sexual partnerships (eg siblings, parent-child, elderly retirees sharing living expenses) the same financial and family law benefits and rights as adults cohabiting in sexual partnerships is a feature, not a bug.
Listening to discussion on ABC talkback radio about this issue, I was disheartened at some of the ignorance on display. One man claimed that he couldn’t see why same sex couples would want their relationships legally recognised as de facto partnerships because so long as they were not they got more benefits with both adults qualifying for the single recipient rate. Obviously, this totally ignores the problems with health care subsidies and family law and everything else, and then he came out with the doozy (paraphrased):
Besides, if they’ve got kids and they aren’t counted as a couple, then both of them can claim children benefit payments, can’t they?
This was, of course, said in what I call the gotcha-gloat tone, as if to say “and if you think they aren’t already doing that all the time then you’re an idiot”.
Right. Any old adult can claim child benefits for any children they purport to parent without having to show that their name is on the birth certificate as the biological parent, can they? Or without showing legal adoption papers? Funnily enough, I really don’t think that is true. In fact, I’m sure that the exact opposite is true - a same sex parent who is not the biological parent cannot get recognised as a parent legally at all - not for the purpose of healthcare decisions (fancy taking your child to hospital and having to prove that you have the right to be in the same room?), not for the purpose of education decisions, not for a multitude more decisions.
What an ignorant jerk. The pity is that he’s not the only one.
tigtog
While I am all for legislative change to remove discriminatory barriers against gay couples, for you to argue that some HREOC Report has any significvance at all compared to Howard’s National Emergency declaration is beyond the pale.
Trust me, most of the gay couples who might be interested in this legislation will be out shopping or still out clubbing. They will be fretting over Calvins versus xxist, Prada versus Gucci, Madonna versus Kylie….
Meanwhile another five year old aborigine is abused, another few dozen women bashed, another young male having suffered a similar life is being carted off to jail…..
Nice priorities you have.
From going through the report, the worst-case scenario for the child is when the biological parent (part of a custodial same-sex couple) dies and the child might be wrenched from their environment.
What was obvious when reading some submissions is that they were more interested in the state making it difficult to get the best outcome for children. The Festival of Light (sub 31) is a good example, where they argued that children in single-parent households were disadvantaged compared to households with a de-facto couple, yet wanted the state to make it difficult for a single parent to raise their child in a house with two caring custodians, despite the better outcomes for the child.
“Perhaps the child-rearing environment of de-facto homosexual families would be improved by treating that relationship more like a marriage, or at the very least, discriminating against it less.” (Sub 255).
On the issue of gay “marriage” versus “civil unions” ther are quite a few tricky issues.
One lesbian couple I know, who are otherwise very cookie-cutter radical left-wing are passionately opposed to gay amrriage. Why? They were once both married to men and do not want the state having anything to do with their relationship. Still, their attitude is in the minority.
Adoption is another tricky issue. I suppose one argument against gay marriage is that I do not support gays having exactly the same right as straight couples in adoption.
I do not think gays should be legally prevented from adopting, I just think the presumption should favour married lady/man couples for adoption.
There are exceptions of course. For example if a straight couple separates/divorces and one or both partners gets in a long-term commited relationship with someone of the same sex, then I can think of plenty of circumstances where it would be most appropriate for the new partner to adopt any children from the previous straight marriage.
Also, there are innumerabel possibilities of any particualr adoption situation favouring a gay couple, but I think these should be seen as exceptions.
I hazard a guess,that the reason this issue is lacking in prominence is that our beloved Dictator and Benefactor,missing cricket,and a refusenik when it comes to wearing beanies,is delighted in the off shore war sports.That way his undergarment can be seen to have the same physiological matter as the duly trained.
Marriage is not on the table according to Howard. The proposed laws are only about de facto partnerships.
Adoption considerations will be interesting. Currently, when a woman gives birth, the birth certificate requires the name of a father whether the mother and father are cohabiting or married or not, although no biological tests are done to prove paternity. So simply giving same sex couples recognition as a de facto couple is unlikely to mean that a lesbian couple can automatically put the mother’s partner on the birth certificate as the other parent, and for a gay male couple biological fatherhood for one will not extend to naming the other as coparent on the birth certificate either.
It will be interesting to see how that aspect could be managed.
GetUp! is doing an online petition on the issueO
John Greenfield, I’m sorry that your first comment has been languishing for so long. It wasn’t in the moderation queue when I let your second comment out, and then I’ve been offline most of the afternoon, so I didn’t see it. It must have got caught up in the spaminator, which is a shame, because I would have enjoyed showing up your spite as comprehensively groundless (as if the idea that addressing more than one political issue at a time shows a lack of character or priorities had any merit in the first place).
Anyway, in my first paragraph in the post above is a link to a post about Howard’s NT Emergency Plan which I wrote yesterday on my own blog. I didn’t crosspost it here because we already had several posts discussing the issue (Kim even linked to my post at Hoyden), so we hardly needed another one on LP.
As to your assertion that not many gay people will be interested in the de facto rights issue, perhaps DINK same-sex couples in Paddo won’t care much. They are far from the majority of same-sex couples in the country, however.
tigtog
I am too tired and delirious to fight with you, so I will meet you half way.
I am sorry if I misconstrued your intention. And no, today I would be right on the what the gay couples were up to. They might get excited tomorrow, but not today. 
People accuse Howard of “Dog-Whistle Politics” (somewhere David Marr just had an orgasm), yet he’s let this go unwhistled.
Personally, I think every kid deserves a shot at having both a real mum and a real dad, but when I see the quality of some hetero parents (see aboriginal crisis) I find it difficult to raise my interest beyond “meh”. Mainstream Australia’s opinion is probably more excitable, and I think it’s noteworthy that Howard isn’t making an issue of it.
Well, I think there’s been a lot of movement in “mainstream Australia” on this issue in the last few years, Craig. A recent Galaxy poll found 71% of Australians supporting partnership rights for same sex couples.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Poll-shows-support-for-gay-marriage/2007/06/21/1182019241206.html
You’d have to take it with a grain of salt, as we’ve seen what’s happened recently with Galaxy and the wording and order of questions where their polls are commissioned by clients (this one is on behalf of GetUp!) but there’s no doubt based on other survey evidence that opposition to rights for same-sex couples really is on the wane quite quickly.
I’m inclined to think GetUp didn’t bring the matter of same-sex adoption to survey respondents, otherwise I think you’re right. Australians generally don’t have an issue with gay couples and whatever arrangements they have between themselves. Of course, whether some of them would be seen having a drink with them is another matter - there are appearances to be maintained.
I suspect after Howard leaves office, unless he wins the election and he’s succeeded by someone like Abbott, Australia will catch up on these issues.
Was it in Crikey that there was some speculation that Howard’s told Ruddock he won’t be on the frontbench after the election, and Ruddock sees supporting the HREOC changes as revivifying his small l liberal legacy? Interesting in any case.
I suspect we’re still a long way from same-sex adoption, no matter who wins the next election.
Really? Same-sex adoption is becoming common in a number of US States, and it’s seen on US TV shows all the time. The general public is becoming inured to the concept of gay adoption as just another type of family.
Certainly there is a backlash from social and particularly religious conservatives against the issue, but gay adoption is happening nonetheless and it is becoming perceived as less and less an abnormal situation.
Define “common”.
tigtog
Absolute garbage. And if it were to happen here, I’d be taking to the steets.
Whatever for, John?
Forgive me if I’m wrong, or if I’m making unwarranted assumptions, or if this is intrusive, but I thought from several of your comments that you yourself were a gay man.
And you really should be wary of assuming that your own attitudes are representative.
The Australian Social Attitudes Survey, which is one of the biggest and most rigorous surveys - coordinated by ANU, found in 2003 that 42% of 1989 respondents agreed that a same sex couple with children is a family. Agreement was 50% among female respondents, 65% among respondents aged 18-34, 56% among respondents aged 35-49 and only 14% for respondents aged over 65. That’s very similar to other survey evidence I’ve seen, and I’d repeat the point that the favourable numbers have shifted even more in the last few years.
No link, sorry, I’m taking the figures from the book.
Mark
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/23/simple-changes-could-end-discrimination-for-thousands-of-australian-couples/#comment-379027
Thanks, John, but you haven’t explained why you think the presumption should lie with opposite sex couples. You’d be aware, I imagine, of all the research which shows that it’s the quality of the parenting rather than the gender of the parents which contributes to positive outcomes for kids.
Actually, the first legal adoption in Australia of a child by a gay couple (men) has just taken place in WA.
The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby in NSW is lobbying at the moment for changes to the legal status of same-sex parents, on the basis that failure to recognise the non-biological parents is discriminatory against the children involved.
JG says: Meanwhile another five year old aborigine is abused, another few dozen women bashed, another young male having suffered a similar life is being carted off to jail…..
Nice priorities you have.
So have you been reordering all your priorities in the past two days John, since the release of the NT report? Cancelling all your own interests and activities, putting your own life on hold?
Apparently JG is taking seriously the “national emergency” rhetoric, Suze! I imagine we won’t hear from him for a while as he volunteers to assist the PM’s militarist/moralist army of whitefellas saving the day. After all, the intertubes are clearly one of the major causes of child abuse.
This actually gives our federal government the chance to grant financial equality to same-sex couples while continuing to deny the symbolic equality that comes with marriage. The HREOC report walks this line very deftly, stating “4.5.3 Formal relationship recognition is helpful but not necessary to access financial entitlements.�
By accepting the HREOC recommendation to change the definition of “de facto� by means of an omnibus bill, the deed would be quick, relatively painless, and would enable the our federal government to claim that they’ve acted with the utmost fairness. And even better for them, it would knock the wind out of the campaign for same-sex marriage, at least temporarily.
It’s a dream solution for a conservative government trying to appease the family-values ratbags while appearing to be fair. It will be interesting to see if they grasp this.
JG, the police don’t stop prosecuting bag-snatchers because there’s a child molester about.
What’s happening to same-sex couples under federal law amounts to officially sanctioned larceny. Expecting our federal government to attend to more than one issue at the same time is perfectly reasonable, and in no way implies that one is less important.
And people should be wary of assuming that surveys are representative or even accurately frame questions. I bet the ANU didn’t ask “do you approve of adoption by homosexual couples?” for instance.
As I said above, I’m at the “meh” level on this. What gets my goat up is the implied promise of activists forcing laws down the majority’s throat in the guise of “human rights”. When the majority of people in this country are ready for same-sex adoption they’ll vote for it. Until then keep lobbying.
Craig, no they didn’t. The question was the one I’ve posted the results of - as simple as that. It’s reasonable to infer that if people do have the belief that same sex couples and kids constitute families, they’d not be opposed to adoption.
As to the representativeness of the survey, that’s why I’ve quoted ASSI. It’s by far the best. As the Liberal blogger Andrew Norton who often cites it knows as well. It’s not a poll - it’s a very comprehensive survey with a sample that is much better and more representative of the population than most polls.
Anyway, the key thing that’s been in evidence for quite some time, no matter what questions are asked, is that basically there are larger majorities for acceptance and tolerance the younger people who are questioned are. That does suggest that majority opposition to aspects of extending civil rights to same sex couples (and it may well be that there’s still majority opposition to adoption and marriage as opposed to civil union - I’m not sure, but it’s possible) is likely to be a thing of the past within a decade or so.
And I don’t know about your claim about “forcing” civil rights. The only reason most of us have voting rights at all is that people fought for them in the nineteenth century.
It’s not OK to cherry-pick among human rights.
With the approval of the majority of Australians, our political leaders continually pay lip service to the concept of a fair go, and this country has gladly signed up to a whole raft of international human rights covenants (most relevant in this case the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child).
Since the majority has jumped on the human rights ride, insisting that all of us be given an equal opportunity to climb aboard is in no way “forcing laws down the majority’s throat.�
Why? This is one of those statements that gets trotted out with such annoying regularity that it becomes “truth”. I don’t see why children need a role model of each sex. That’s only necessary if you believe a) each sex has specific attributes b) it is good for people to develop sex-specific attributes and c) the only way one can develop attributes is by emulating a role model. Since I don’t believe any of these statements, I find the whole concept baffling at best and sexist at worst.
Thanks for the light shining on this issue, tigtog. It’s 2007 ferchrissakes and people are still questioning why there is a need for Govt. protection of minorities? In fact, isn’t the benchmark of a just and successful Govt. its ability to assist its weak and downtrodden?
Wha? That’s an argument?
Sorry, but nothing I have read in either Convention creates a right to same-sex marriage or gay adoption and it would come as a shock to quite a few countries signatory to those conventions, which were signed at a time when homosexual activity was illegal in many countries, as it still is in quite a few, to be told that they do.
These issues should be sorted out according to Australian mores and on that basis I think Australians would not be fazed by same sex couples having the same rights as hetrosexual defacto couples, though I think they’d baulk at a formal right to marriage because of the symbolism.
Granted, neither document states “and poofs will be allowed to adopt their partners’ biological children.” However Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that children cannot suffer discrimination because of their parents’ status.
Children born in a heterosexual relationship get two legal parents. Children born in a same-sex relationship typically get only one, the biological parent. In this situation, only the biological parent has rights over the child. This means that if a medical treatment is required and the biological parent is not present, the non-biological parent has no a priori right to authorise that treatment, to the obvious detriment of the child.
Article 7 of the Convention guarantees a child the right to “know and be cared for by his or her parents.” Australia’s refusal to acknowledge both parents is an arbitrary interference with this right.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for protection from discrimination. While it doesn’t mention sexuality or sexual orientation specifically, these are clearly covered by “other status,” and cases before the UN Human Rights Committee have upheld this view. In two relevant cases, Australia has been held by the UN Human Rights Committee to be in breach of this covenant.
See the chapter on human rights protections in the HREOC report for more details.
Putting aside the legalistic details, the reality is that many gay and lesbian couples are raising children, and their numbers will increase. For Australia to be considered as meeting its obligations with regard to the above conventions, same-sex couples should be able to leave their superannuation to their partners and/or non-biological children. They should be able to pick their kids up from childcare or take them to the doctor without arbitrary interference. And if their relationships break down, they should have access to the Family Court, if only to ensure the best outcome for any children in their care.
Official recognition of their partnerships (i.e. marriage, by whatever name you care to give it), and official recognition of their relationship with their children (e.g. adoption, though to be equal, it needs to be more presumptive than adoption), is the best way to achieve this.
I don’t see why children need a role model of each sex. That’s only necessary if you believe a) each sex has specific attributes b) it is good for people to develop sex-specific attributes and c) the only way one can develop attributes is by emulating a role model. Since I don’t believe any of these statements, I find the whole concept baffling at best and sexist at worst.
I totally agree, Peter.
Besides which, I’d like to know what a “real mum” and a “real dad” are - or better yet, what’s a fake mum? (Shades of the “pretend families” which Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives tried to ban under the infamous Section 28.)
Well actually no. Conventions are legal documents, aspirational although many of them are. You can’t ignore the “legalistic details” when you invoke them. If the conventions did not contemplate same-sex marriages when they were agreed you cannot retrospectively impute that intent to them.
Australia should do all that you propose independent of what the conventions say because it is the right thing to do.
a) Each sex does have specific attributes. You will notice this if you observe that their genitalia are different.
b) It is good for people to develop their sex-specific attributes. This is called puberty and without it the human race would die out fairly rapidly.
c) These attributes develop irrespective of any role models. Diet is important.
However those attributes are irrelevant as to whether a person would be a “good” parent, just as they are as to whether a person is a “good” person.
You’re confusing sex and gender, GregM.
No I’m not Mark. A person’s sex is determined from physical attributes. Gender is a psychological/ social/ cultural construct. You are confusing sex with sexual orientation and expressions of identity which are psychological issues. http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html
Peter (and Suz)
I think it is useful to have a role model from different spots along the axis of personality traits labelled “masculine” and “feminine” to learn from the differences of personality types. This has nothing to do with gender or sexuality: and most couples are made up of one who tends to “wear the pants”, and one who is more “nurturing” (and it is not out-of-the-question for testing to reveal couples where the female is more dominant and the male more nurturing).
While I totally agree that this post has had a heavy discussion of the issues where children are involved, I think the legal privileges/duties associated with “next of kin” are worth significant discussion and analysis.
And that’s why my alternative question would be a good control for that inference. If the ANU didn’t pose it, I suggest it’s because they knew they wouldn’t like the answer.
Well, you don’t really need two kidneys either.
Changes to NSW law regarding IVF kiddies & parenting status of non-biological same-sex partnered parents have been in the offing since 2005, & as a forthcoming article in the Law Society Journal points out, the discrimination faced by these kids’ parents has unfair impacts on the kids. It is simply not that the state is discriminating to preserve the notion of different-sex parenting, but the state is actively involved in discriminating against some of its own citizens, including children. Discrimination based on beliefs not provable poor outcomes for the children in those relationships.
And will the states act? Not before the Federal election - what would Howard do with such a juicy piece of wedge politics as that? All those nasty little labour governments busily undermining society as we know it. Ah all that stupid tosh about different sex parents automatically being more appropriate. Empirical research from other OECD countries, finds that children from same-sex relationships, WHERE ALL PARENTING RIGHTS ARE ACKNOWLEDGED have better educational & societal outcomes than their straight raised contemporaries. But lets not allow reason to stand in the way of prejudice shall we?
suz
Thanks for the link on the gay guys adopting. However, as the very brief newsclip reads, it does not contradict my own posistion in the slightest. Do you know anything more about this case? I’d be interested to know if the biological parents knew the men (ex-husband/lover/brother/friend, etc.).
One thing that does disturb me is the presentation of the biological parents’ consent as somehow a good thing. Call me crazy, but any human being who finds themselves in a position that they cannot bring up their child, and therefore must adopt out, is in no position to provide wise counsel on who SHOULD take over that responsibility.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/23/simple-changes-could-end-discrimination-for-thousands-of-australian-couples/#comment-379027
GregM, I beg to differ. Your comment was all about genitalia and sexual difference in that (biological) sense. Unless there’s some sort of argument around about that, I thought it was pretty clear that the arguments against same-sex adoption were premised on the sex/gender distinction - viz. that gender roles were learned behaviour, and that there should be a “teacher” of the opposite gender.
Mark, it was a lazy Sunday afternoon and having locked horns, in a very friendly way, with Katz on another thread about Godwin’s Law and Kim Il Sung’s canine culinary preferences I was looking for mischief and being literal-minded as is often my wont. Nevertheless, Peter’s comments were about sex, not gender. I would, if it was not getting too late, dig up a WHO link that gives the same sex/gender definitions which I gave in the link I provided and which being from an International Organisation under the aegis of the UN therefore impeccable authority to you but mine was merely a semantic point. You will though, I am sure, appreciate the importance of semantics in ensuring the clarity of meaning that gives clarity to thinking.
The rest of my comment made it clear thatit is my view that distinctions about parents exclusively on the basis of sex are not determinant on the well-being of a child. Give any child a loving, caring, nurturing, challenging and supportive family and they will prosper. It matters not at all what the sex is of those who supply that environment. Equally, if the parents are that “gold standard” of being a heterosexual male and female couple and they are neglectful of the well-being of the child then the outcome for the child will be, at best, sub-optimal. Sometimes it can be tragic.
No probs, GregM, I was just trying to clarify what you were saying with your comment.
I think you’re onto the key thing here - there are all sorts of bad outcomes for kids where people have kids for the wrong reasons - or where because of the social circumstances in which they find themselves, they have little access to the sorts of things that go towards bringing up kids well.
I think that same sex couples, as with other couples who for biological reason can’t have kids, are very likely to have thought very seriously about parenting, and what’s involved in bringing up kids in a nurturing and loving enviroment. I don’t want to romanticise it, though, but sometimes straight couples do have kids just because it’s an expectation. Only sometimes, mind. But I think that anyone who thinks very seriously about what’s involved in bringing up a child is to be applauded regardless of their gender or sexuality.
I’m always very mindful of these things, as I am tonight, when I catch up with friends who do have kids (I don’t) - it’s an awesome responsibility.
JG, the biological mother approved the gay couple as adoptive parents.
The biological grandmother gave an interview (RealAudio) to the ABC in Perth, also reported here.
Just to clarify, my comments were about behaviour (gender), not biology (sex).
woulfe
thanks for that, but my point still stands.
One thing that does disturb me is the presentation of the biological parents’ consent as somehow a good thing. Call me crazy, but any human being who finds themselves in a position that they cannot bring up their child, and therefore must adopt out, is in no position to provide wise counsel on who SHOULD take over that responsibility.
John, these days many adoptions are ‘open’, ie. the birth family continues to have contact with the child, whether that’s once a year or once a week. Open adoptions are considered best for the child, if the birth family are in a mentally healthy state. Obviously, in an open adoption, you wouldn’t want the birth family to be hostile to the mere fact of the adopters being a same-sex couple.
[Having said that, I know nothing about this particular adoption, but obviously there is an element of openness because the birth family does know who has adopted the child.]
JG, your ability to draw unequivocal conclusions from miniscule amounts of information is very enviable.
Lacking this talent, I have to rely on my naïve faith that it is indeed possible for a mother to logically and reasonably decide that the best outcome for her child is to offer it up for adoption.
In any event, it’s difficult to condemn a parent who passes her child to a couple whose parenting potential has been independently examined, and deemed satisfactory. How many biological parents endure, let alone pass, this scrutiny?
Greetings,
I don’t know if you caught it, but in a recent SMH article the Federal Member for Gwydir, John Anderson said:
I’ve started a campaign to have people e-mail the full 2,331kb HREOC “Same-sex: Same entitlements” report to Mr Anderson so he will be much better informed next time he’s asked for a similar quote. I wonder how many copies we could get sent to him if we really try?
I’d be most grateful if you’d spread it around. You can find all the links at my blog:
http://gaycurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2007/06/john-anderson-mp-needs-our-help.html
~GC
Gay Curmudgeon, that level of ignorance would indicate he doesn’t even read the daily papers and is beyond belief in an elected representative.
I believe John Larkin said “They f##k you up, your Mum and Dad”. Not your Mum and Mum or Dad and Dad. Gold Standard, eh?
Er, do you have godparents?
Craig Mc
Indeed. One male, one female. Both chosen by people who did not disgustingly give me away. Any obs?
Disgustingly? So do you think anyone who gives a baby for adoption is being disgusting?
-Philip- Larkin, methinks.
I second Suz’s query about relinquishing bioparents: what’s so disgusting about recognising that one is not best situated for being a dedicated or capable parent at that time of one’s life? Wouldn’t it be worse to carry on regardless despite not being dedicated or capable?
suz
If my parents had adopted me out I would hope they died in a fiery plane crash. To give up your child for no good reason is despicable.
“no good reason” being the point where you are no longer deserving of being taken seriously, troll boy.
Anna Winter
As the question being asked is about MY godparents, the circumstances are about MY parents. Anna, if for once you were able to debate somebody without dismissing them as a “troll” because they get the better of you, your contributions would improve immensely. The leftist feminist “troll” hiding-space is become a little tired.
Actually the thread is about gay and lesbian rights, John. Not you or your parents or your feelings about adoption.
Once again, Not About You.